83x anyone? The new Nikon P900 (2 Viewers)

[crazyfingers]

My replacement P900 was delivered to my home today. It's in Massachusetts and I'm in Las Vegas on business. YUK.

I hope it has 1.1 installed. I don't relish doing a firmware update either. Always worry about ending up with a piece of electronics as dead as a rock if I do it wrong.

 

[mzettie]

Using the polarizer was, in a word, a disaster! The camera had a tough time focusing on anything... Not sure but it might be because there are 2 layers of glass in a polarizer which appeared to cause the AF system fits... for me it's not a big deal.

Chris

I was afraid that was going to be the case. Not a big deal here either, just thought it might help at long focal lengths over water. Thanks for letting me know.

 

[mzettie]

No Mzetti, just a medium priced one from DIGIeye. £7 or there about.

Got the firmware update installed with fear and trepidation, terrified of doing it wrong and messing up the camera. Instructions don't tell you whether you can use your card afterwards...........

Chasing those planes was fun, picking up the vapour trails and following them to the plane, using all the zoom function up to full digital with burst.

Den

Yes, I've had fun chasing planes too. Pretty amazing to hone in on a speck and watch it turn into an aircraft! Seems like good practice for BIFs, but I have yet to get a good one.

 

[mzettie]

My replacement P900 was delivered to my home today. It's in Massachusetts and I'm in Las Vegas on business. YUK.

I hope it has 1.1 installed. I don't relish doing a firmware update either. Always worry about ending up with a piece of electronics as dead as a rock if I do it wrong.

Aw, too bad you don't have it now, with that pretty western light. Well, it'll make getting home all the sweeter. I'll bet it has the new firmware but if not, I wouldn't sweat it.....I think if you do it wrong it just doesn't load, at least that was my experience.

 

[crazyfingers]

Aw, too bad you don't have it now, with that pretty western light. Well, it'll make getting home all the sweeter. I'll bet it has the new firmware but if not, I wouldn't sweat it.....I think if you do it wrong it just doesn't load, at least that was my experience.

I hope so on the firmware.

I did bring an SX50 with me this trip as I had hoped to have a few hours Wednesday when I was in LA, California and planned to check out a park across from the Queen Mary in Long Beach harbor. But flight delays and terrible traffic nixed my plans.

Conference all day tomorrow and then red-eye home. I doubt I'll have taken the camera out this trip..

 

[mzettie]

I hope it has 1.1 installed. I don't relish doing a firmware update either. Always worry about ending up with a piece of electronics as dead as a rock if I do it wrong.

For those still looking to do the firmware update; make sure the camera battery is fully charged. According to people with camera software experience, low battery power's one thing that could thwart a successful uploading.

 

[crazyfingers]

Home again. I got the P900 set up on the regular settings I was using before. Fine, Manual normal, etc... It does have firmware 1.1.

I took photos of the same static objects I took with the last one. But my first impression is that the P900 is a piece of crap compared with the SX50. P900 at 2000mm and SX50 at 2439mm using the 2x teleconverter and every single comparison shot I've taken the SX50 is significantly superior. As the day goes on I'll post some examples but unless something changes this P900 is also be going back and I'll be giving up on the P900 as an overexpensive, oversized, overweight camera that can't take a photo that's better than the SX50 while also being significantly less user friendly and less customizable.

And to add, the Canon is not on fine mode. Just normal mode. The Nikon is creating files that are twice the size and not as good.

 

[crazyfingers]

Here are some early samples.

There will be 4 pair of photos 2 pair in this post and two in the next.

Nikons will be first and Canon second.

The Nikon is at 2000mm set to fine mode, focus is manual normal, etc...
The canon is maximum optical and the 2x digital teleconverter so an effective 2439mm. The canon is not set to fine mode but normal mode.

 

[crazyfingers]

second pair Nikon first and Canon second.

 

[Marcobf]

The Nikon shots don't seem to be in focus (try different modes?) It also appears that the Canon has more DOF although that doesn't make sense. Colours are cooler with the Canon too

If that really is the best you can get from the Nikon then can't argue with your conclusion. I wonder if it's a return?

 

[crazyfingers]

The Nikon shots don't seem to be in focus (try different modes?) It also appears that the Canon has more DOF although that doesn't make sense. Colours are cooler with the Canon too

If that really is the best you can get from the Nikon then can't argue with your conclusion. I wonder if it's a return?

I was in regular P mode for the Nikon and yes the Canon also has more DOF. I was getting more DOF from the Canon vs the Nikon I returned.

Once again I'll mess around with it this weekend but I really don't know how I'd get a significantly better focus than I'm getting. It seems that it is what it is. I picked the best of the lot to compare.

Two more pair. Nikon first and Canon second.

The Canon is closer and more in focus. This is very discouraging.

 

[ChrisKten]

second pair Nikon first and Canon second.

No interest in the camera, but you're not comparing like for like:

Pic #2:

Camera Maker: NIKON
Camera Model: COOLPIX P900
Image Date: 2015-05-16 10:33:54 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 357.0mm (35mm equivalent: 2000mm)
Aperture: ƒ/6.5
Exposure Time: 0.0020 s (1/500)
ISO equiv: 280
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Center Weight
Exposure: program (Auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Software: COOLPIX P900 V1.1

Pic #4:

Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon PowerShot SX50 HS
Image Date: 2015-05-16 09:30:53 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 215.0mm
Digital Zoom: 1.953x
Aperture: ƒ/6.5
Exposure Time: 0.0063 s (1/160)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Center Weight
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined

The Nikon looks like it's applying more noise reduction to the jpeg, but it's at ISO 280. The Canon is at base ISO, so much less noise reduction needed. So the Canon jpeg looks sharper.

You need to compare the two cameras at the same settings to see which is better. It might be that the Nikon will always be heavy handed with noise reduction, so always look softer. But based on the images you've posted; I'd keep the Canon

(I should add; I've never owned/used a Canon or Nikon camera, so I've no vested interest )

 

[mzettie]

Home again. I got the P900 set up on the regular settings I was using before. Fine, Manual normal, etc... It does have firmware 1.1.

I took photos of the same static objects I took with the last one. But my first impression is that the P900 is a piece of crap compared with the SX50. P900 at 2000mm and SX50 at 2439mm using the 2x teleconverter and every single comparison shot I've taken the SX50 is significantly superior. As the day goes on I'll post some examples but unless something changes this P900 is also be going back and I'll be giving up on the P900 as an overexpensive, oversized, overweight camera that can't take a photo that's better than the SX50 while also being significantly less user friendly and less customizable.

And to add, the Canon is not on fine mode. Just normal mode. The Nikon is creating files that are twice the size and not as good.

Crazy, do you have noise reduction set to low, and AF set to S, not F?
If so, I can't account for your results. When I tested the two in a similar fashion, the Nikon was clearly superior, especially at long distances. If it hadn't been I'd have sent it back, cause I agree that it's not a user-friendly camera. Any chance they sent you back the same camera with new firmware installed?

 

[crazyfingers]

Crazy, do you have noise reduction set to low, and AF set to S, not F?
If so, I can't account for your results. When I tested the two in a similar fashion, the Nikon was clearly superior, especially at long distances. If it hadn't been I'd have sent it back, cause I agree that it's not a user-friendly camera. Any chance they sent you back the same camera with new firmware installed?

I did forget to put noise reduction on low. Done it now. I did put AF to S.

It's showering out now and I am super exhausted from my red-eye home. Two hours sleep in a chair doesn't help the thinking or the mood. Don't know if I'll do more testing today or not.

But ever since you posted that closeup of that transformer or whatever it was way back I've been thinking that I don't recall ever getting as bad a photo as that from my SX50. I have been wondering if yours might be off a bit?

 

[mzettie]

I did forget to put noise reduction on low. Done it now. I did put AF to S.

It's showering out now and I am super exhausted from my red-eye home. Two hours sleep in a chair doesn't help the thinking or the mood. Don't know if I'll do more testing today or not.

But ever since you posted that closeup of that transformer or whatever it was way back I've been thinking that I don't recall ever getting as bad a photo as that from my SX50. I have been wondering if yours might be off a bit?

Don't think there's anything wrong with my SX50, but then again it is getting kinda long in the tooth! || Maybe someone else with both cameras will see fit to do a little test.
BTW, the images you referred to are on page twelve of this thread and they were taken at a a distance of 50 yards.

 

[crazyfingers]

I'm not sure so I need to test more tomorrow when it's supposed to be nice weather and I'll be feeling better but, and I don't know how it would work, it seems that the closer to the subject the closer the P900 can get to the quality of the SX50. But the greater the distance, the worse the P900 is next to the SX50. I noticed after I took a few more shots with NR on low. I am going to test this tomorrow.

 

[crazyfingers]

The Nikon looks like it's applying more noise reduction to the jpeg, but it's at ISO 280. The Canon is at base ISO, so much less noise reduction needed. So the Canon jpeg looks sharper.

You need to compare the two cameras at the same settings to see which is better. It might be that the Nikon will always be heavy handed with noise reduction, so always look softer. But based on the images you've posted; I'd keep the Canon

(I should add; I've never owned/used a Canon or Nikon camera, so I've no vested interest )

The thing is, I know me. I'm not one who's going to be fiddling with settings each shot. And I know that I'll also be at or close to maximum zoom most of the time. So I am trying to see if the Nikon can outperform the Canon out there at the max. If I need to use a different basic setting that will have the camera otherwise make good choices and get the focus, then I'd like to set it that way and leave it. That's how the Canon is set. That's just me too.

I hope tomorrow to play more with P and maybe A. Maybe maybe there is some silver bullet that will make the Nikon worth keeping, but I's doubtful.

And keep in mind, the Canon can do better if I set it to fine mode. The Nikon is set to fine jpg and Canon just to standard and still the Canon is beating the Nikon.

 

[Neil]

A lot a talk about the pros and cons of Nikon P900 v Canon SX series cameras so I thought I would do a quick check at distance ( 150 - 500 metres)
Cloudy today , just after some rain. Set the cameras at iso 100 and WB cloudy. Difficult to get the zooms the same but got close. Used the 2x teleconverter on the SX60. Here are a couple of comparisons. Nikon on top, before on left , adjusted on right ( Contrast,Smart Sharpen).
If anything the SX60 jpegs looked a little better before adjustment , but similar after. I'm not seeing much difference ( if any) between them. Certainly not enough to justify the money. The SX50 would also produce similar results from memory ( I don't have mine anymore), but I can arrange a test next week with a friend.
These are at or close to full zoom .If anyone wants to see bigger files or other magnifications let me know.
Neil.
Hong Kong,China.
May 2015

 

[Chris B.]

Nice test, Neil!

Since I am a photographer first, birder second, my personal feeling is that the Canon white balance shows slightly truer colors than the Nikon. Whites especially, but that's an easy fix in post-processing...

Chris

 

[crazyfingers]

Well I am giving up. Unless someone has a suggestion to get the Nikon performing significantly better, I'll be sending it back.

I've posted so many comparisons. Nothing is changing.

The first two are the Nikon and the second two are the Canon.
These are from probably 30 feet abouts.

Nikon is 2000mm
Canon is 2439mm using the 2x digital teleconverter.

And the Canon is not on fine mode or whatever Canon calls it. It's only on normal JPG and so the Canon photos could be even better than the Nikons.

The Nikon is saving on Fine mode.

And it kills me that on average the original Nikon files are about 6mb and the Canon's are 3mb.